English Literature Journals
Please share your experiences working with these journals! Feel free to add other journals to the list. Try to stick with this format: each journal should be separated by dashes, and responses under each journal should each have their own bullet. *I moved Eighteenth-Century Fiction, Exemplaria, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, MFS, Modernism/Modernity, New Literary History, Novel: A Forum on Fiction, PMLA, Renaissance Quarterly, Representations and Speculum to the Comparative Literature/Theory page, since they do not focus exclusively on English literature. Back to Literary Studies Journals ---- ''ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes and Reviews'' *This journal has a very fast turnaround time. Highly recommend. * A three-month turnaround to acceptance. Nice people. *Things seem to have changed since the time of the previous post. I submitted using the online system and have not heard a peep from the editor, who does not respond to my inquiries. Yes, you can track the progress of submitted articles online, but all I can see is that it has been "under review" for over five months. UPDATE: now over six months, and the editor still does not respond. Not unheard of, but unacceptable nonetheless. I am eager to learn whether my current experience with this journal is typical, or if someone else has recently had a better one. UPDATE: nine months and no word. * I just submitted an article here. I'm worried if the journal is really dysfunctional. Could anyone share their recent experiences with this journal? * As a reply to the last query, based on experience in 2013 and 2014 (yes, it took more than a year from first submission to eventual publication): the journal is functional, but things go extremely slow, and the editor is very reluctant to reply to any of your inquiries. On the other hand, my reviewer was completely fair, and his/her advice was useful. * The system says that my work is "under review." It's already six months. I've got no reply as well. Anyone has a different experience? ---- ''Anglia * ---- ''Anglo-Saxon England *Can't tell if this journal even has peer-review beyond the editors' own short comments. Seems not to be the most professional of outfits. * this is the single most prestegious journal in Anglo-Saxon Studies. ---- [http://appositions.blogspot.ie/ APPOSITIONS: Studies in Renaissance / Early Modern Literature & Culture] * ---- ''Ben Jonson Journal'' *Article submitted on June 19. Accepted with suggested revisions on June 27. Resubmitted with revisions on July 10. Received copyedited text on July 27. Everything was extremely fast, kind and professional. Paper will be published in the November issue. Proof received mid-August. Highly recommended journal. * Agreed with above. This was the first journal I published in, back in 2005. They were excellent. Very efficient readers, comprehensive reports, and generous copy-editing. Highly recommended. * Also agreeing with above. Quick and efficient editing. Reports were brief but to the point. ---- ''Borrowers and Lenders: The Journal of Shakespeare and Appropriation'' * ---- ''Byron Journal'' * ---- ''Cahiers Élisabéthains'' *As a play review contributor, the process was easy and well-managed. *I submitted an article and received an acceptance very quickly. The reviewer's requests for revision were very reasonable and helpful, and the senior editor is very communicative and friendly. ---- ''Chaucer Review'' *I had a great experience with this journal--my first article as a grad student. Quick turnaround, with detailed readers reports for a revise and resubmit. The editor included comments and suggestions for addressing the reviewer's suggestions. Quick acceptance on resubmission and a wonderful editorial staff who were very helpful in the final stages of the proofing process. All in all, professional but welcoming. * Quick turnaround (less than 4 months)--a revise and resubmit. Revised according to editors' and readers' suggestions, returned essay less than 4 months later, was rejected. Revise and resubmits are apparently sent to a third reader who hasn't seen the earlier essay or the previous readers' comments, so be careful about how you revise. * Submission in 2010 was rejected rather harshly. Not recommended for the novice Chaucerian as they have high standards, and will be sure to let you know it. *Submission was acknowledged the day they received the manuscript (per the postal tracking data). Editors' and reader's reports (acceptance with minor revisions) arrived ten weeks later. The editors clearly explained which of the reader's suggestions to follow. Revised work was accepted in under a month, so the total time from submission to final acceptance (bearing in mind my revision time) was almost exactly four months. Editors have been extremely professional and helpful. They have provided useful information on copy-editing, volume and issue number, and the rest of the process. If everything goes according to plan, total time from submission to publication will be eighteen months. *Timely review, ultimately rejected without invitation to resubmit, but the readers' reports were helpful and thoughtful. Overall very positive experience despite outcome--more journals should follow suit in this way. No reason to reject without helpful comments. ---- ''The Conradian'' * ---- ''Conradiana'' * ---- ''Early Modern Literary Studies'' *Probably 3 months from submission to decision, and good, decently detailed and helpful reports. *Did you get a confirmation of your submission when you sent it in originally? *2013: I have had a submission with them for almost a year and have not heard anything, not even a confirmation. *2013: I also didn't hear anything for 15 months (I submitted in 2012), and when I heard back, they asked me to re-submit entirely *I submitted something a couple years ago. I got very fast and generally positive reports (a couple of weeks, as I recall). So I made some minor changes, sent the ms back promptly with a few questions for the editors, and...heard nothing at all. I was never even really clear if the piece had been accepted or not. I made a few email inquiries as the months wore on and was mostly ignored (as in, I didn't get any response at all). Then my piece was suddenly published about a year after submission. My general impression is that things were quite disorganized there at the time. I think there may be new editors now, so perhaps things are running more smoothly. *I also submitted and never heard back, so I resubmitted with explanation and never heard back--not even an acknowledgement of submission. I submitted somewhere else after two years. *This was one of the first journals I submitted to (back in 2005). Really quick response (2 months) with comprehensive and helpful readers' reports. I revised and resubmitted; the piece was published shortly after. They've recently switched over to a new journal system (Open Journal Systems) which may explain some of the teething problems outlined above. * Three months from submission to R&R; three more months from submission of revisions to acceptance. Useful readers' reports, although one had a particularly off-putting tone. ---- ''Early Modern Studies Journal'' (was'' Early English Studies'') *Fast turnaround but my article was copyedited by a grad student who was completely cluless as to both editing standards and the field of study. I finally had to request a faculty editor. *Was accepted for the 2012 issue, but they've been having "website problems." It's been six months since the publication was scheduled to apperar. ---- ''Early Theatre'' *Very efficient editorial team and generous copy-editing. Great journal to publish with. ---- ''English'' (Oxford journal) * ---- ''ELH: English Literary History'' *Produced an article that engages directly with an aspect of lit. history (in relation to three authors) and sent it to one of the leading lights in the field for preliminary feedback. Received an exceptionally positive assessment of the essay. Submitted the piece to ELH and received a rejection message after fives weeks - no reason, no feedback. Frankly, regardless of what they state on their website, I find it poor professional practice not to offer two or three sentences on the reasons for rejection. * Submitted an article in May 2011 and received a rejection in December 2011. The editor shared only the reader's suggestion that the article would be appropriate for a more specialized journal. *Submitted an article in June 2011 and received email notice of acceptance in September 2011 (on a weekend!). Article was accepted as submitted, no revisions were requested (although I do understand from others that it is common for'' ELH'' to request some revisions before final acceptance). No reader reports were provided, but it is my understanding that ELH ''does not usually provide reader comments (part of the reason why they have a quick turn-around time). Was told to expect 12-18 months between submission of final article manuscript and publication. :*Update: There was a longer delay than originally promised, and the essay is now set appear in a 2013 issue (luckily I was not in a position to need the article in print quickly). Although I was not orginally asked for revisions, the text was fairly heavily copy-edited when it was returned to me for review (most suggested edits were sensible and welcome). I understand that this journal has recently changed editors and I believe that has been affecting the process somewhat, but the new editor now seems to be well on the way to having things back on track. *Received rejection about three months after submission, with brief (one sentence) but helpful statement about reasons for rejection. *Rejection three months from submission; as in the cases of the posters above, the response came on a weekend, and with the suggestion that I send it to a more specialized journal. *Rejection three months from submission. No reasons, no readers' reports. *Rejection after 3 months from an associate editors. Same as above: no reasons, no readers' reports. *Rejection after 4 months from senior editor, with an attached reviewer's paragraph explaining rejection. *Submitted an article in September 2012 and received very encouraging "minor revision" requests in November. Got the piece back by December and received much more involved "major revision" requests in January. Got the piece back to them by February and received an acceptance in early April 2013, with a long list of final "highly suggested" changes to the piece. So, ''ELH clearly does engage in very meticulous and involved cycles of revision from time to time, though I believe my experience (in particular, a "major" revision that followed a "minor" revision) was somewhat unique. Still, if you can get your foot in the door with a minor/major revision request, they may be one of the best journals for improving a piece quickly and efficiently, because the comments are quite detailed, and they turn drafts around like lightning. Another reason they are good for this is that you work only with one reader across all revisions; your revisions always go back to the same person. This removes the annoyance of having a wild-card second (or third) reader involved in later stages of revision. Responses always came on Saturdays. *Submitted article in early July 2011. Acceptance 8 weeks later via email (on Saturday!), with no reader's reports. Email noted there had been only one reader. Was told they typically take 18 months or less to get articles published, but because of a growing backlog and change in editor, it's now about 2 years. *Rejection almost exactly three months after submission with suggestion that I send it to a more specialized journal. *Rejection three months after submission, no comments, no readers' reports, no response to email inquiry about any possible feedback. *Rejection from senior editor one month after submission. No reasons or readers' reports. *Rejection several months after submitting, with only an irritating comment, presumably passed on from the reader (also on the board), to read her (!) work on the subject. *Rejection six weeks after submission. As above, no reasons or readers' reports. *Submitted essay late July 2013; acceptance received early Feb 2013 with brief, positive reader report and no requests for revision. After hearing nothing for nearly six months, I emailed the editorial assistant to ask about status. A week or so later, he apologized for the delay, said he'd email the reader, and invited me to be in touch if I hadn't heard in two weeks. I hadn't and so emailed again; got another apology and a promise to try to turn things around quickly. This was followed within days by the acceptance, with gracious apologies from both senior editor and reader for the long delay. (If I had it to do over, I'd have asked for an update a bit sooner, say after 4 months.) No word yet on when essay might appear, but I tried to signal tactfully that I'd appreciate being bumped up at least a bit in the queue given the very long time it took to hear back. Essay went to a member of the editorial board, who revealed his/her identity in a personal email to me that further apologized for the delay (which I appreciated!); whether this email was possible because my identity was never concealed or because the reader recognized my work from conferences, etc., I don't know. *For what it is worth, the journal states plainly on its website that it does not routinely provide readers' reports. *Submitted an article on an obscure text. A week later, had very kind email explaining that the topic was not well-known enough for them. I appreciated the quick and professional rejection. * Rejection a month or so after submission. I get that they don't do reader reports, and am grateful for the quick turnaround to rejection. But the do the Scholar One "awaiting reviewer assignment, reviewer scores, etc" cycle thing. Even if it's editors that are doing the reading at the early stage, you'd think they could provide some summary report (whether of external referee's or editor's pov) of at least a couple of sentences. It seems somehow strange and unhelpful to the profession that a journal should have a paper for any length of time and put it through some process that's registered on the MS 1 submission website then offer nothing at all (not even a sentence) in the way of feedback. They say ahead of time that they don't give reader reports, which is fine. But that should not be an excuse for the editors' giving no summary or feedback whatsoever. * Rejected after six months. I had to make an inquiry after hearing nothing. I did receive reviewer comments saying that my article was not the right critical style for ELH. I wish there could have been more than one reviewer, but I was happy to receive feedback -- wish it could have come sooner! * Submission to acceptance in 3 months. Appeared in print a year later. Editors were easy to work with. Process is very relaxed. ---- ''ELN: English Language Notes *Quite fast and very professional. Clear,feedback from two readers. I did not agree with one of the readers but the editor mediated it fairly. * Journal based at UC Boulder and arranged around special topics. ---- ''ELR: English Literary Renaissance *Submitted an article in 2008 or so, got a positive rejection letter with 2 good readers' reports w/in 6 mos. Then in 2010, emailed the editor to see if they would be willing to read a new version of the essay. They said yes, so I sent it in sometime over the 2010-2011 Winter break.. Received word in April or May 2011 that they liked my essay but had not been able to decide if they wished to include it, and that they would be in touch in the fall. Sept. 2011 they email me to say that they have accepted the article for publication in the 2013 volume, and included 2 reader's reports with suggestions for revision. *Submitted an article in Oct. 2011, and received a prompt confirmation letter that they had received it. Now it's practically August 2012 and I've heard nothing from the journal. Sent the editor an e-mail over a month ago politely requesting a status update and updating my contact info because I've changed institutions. I did not receive a reply to this e-mail, and am now unsure what to do. Send another e-mail? A colleague suggested that I call the journal, but I'm hesitant to do this. :*To the above: I've been given to understand that e-mail is defnitely not the best way to contact the editor at this journal. I was in a similar situation, and I was advised to snail mail, and I got prompt responses. :*Thanks -- I will try snail mail. :*Update: Received a rejection originially mailed to my old institution months ago (not quite sure why I never received it) after requesting an update via snail mail. The two readers' reports will be useful for revisions, but I can't read them in entirety because they were sloppily photocopied (the originals must be lost in the mail somwhere). I don't think anyone is to blame for the snafu, but it's a little frustrating that I could have revised the article and submitted it somewhere else weeks or even months ago. Lesson to anyone submitting to this journal (confirming above advice): DO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THIS JOURNAL VIA E-MAIL! *My experience was that they were completely unprofessional. Long (six month?) wait for any confirmation that the article had even been sent to readers, then they took a couple more months to reject the article. One reader rejected the article but had clearly, even humorously, not read the essay very carefully, if at all. This turned out to be a joke and waste of my time. *I sent an article back in 2008, and although I got a fairly prompt typed-written notification that they had received the article, it took 9 months for me to get back a single reader's report where the reader didn't even get my name right (gave me 3 different last names at various points) and basically didn't say anything about the argument, research, structure, etc. Instead, the reader quibbled with the wording of one of my footnotes for a few paragraphs. I submitted originally because I heard that they provided careful and thoughtful readers' reports, but this was not my experience at all. *I submitted an article in June 2012 and received a rejection in November 2012, accompanied by two cursory and condescending readers' responses. As noted above, it was clear that they hadn't read the submission carefully, and maybe hadn't even gotten beyond the introduction. The rationale for rejection was that that argument wasn't appropriate to the journal; fair enough, but why take 5 months to determine that? I won't be submitting here again. *Question: The submission instructions on ELR's website say to follow the outdated 2nd edition of the MLA style manual (perhaps these are old instructions?) and the MLA Directory of Periodicals says modified Chicago style. Which is it? :*I used modified Chicago and didn't have any objections to my submission based on format. *I had a generally positive experience with this journal in 2013, through first an original and then a revised submission. Both times I received substantive feedback and a board decision within three months. I also did not have the problems with communication that some of the previous posters experienced: the editorial assistants corresponded promptly via email (acknowledging receipt of my submission or addressing concerns I had about timeline; I probably corresponded half a dozen times over email with two different assistants). My essay was ultimately rejected, and I'm not thrilled about the way it got blocked seemingly by a single reader, but those things can happen at any journal. Overall, they were efficient and professional. :*I am a member of the ELR editorial board, writing in (in Spring, 2014) to apologize to those of you who have had frustrating experiences communicating with the journal in the past. Our editor-in-chief does still occasionally use his typewriter, but you can *always* reach our editorial assistant via email at elr@english.umass.edu. While the majority of our submissions receive a decision from us in four months or fewer (we meet three times a year as a board to discuss submissions -- usually in early May, late September, and late January), certain things can delay the process, as at any journal. Sometimes a reader does not submit a report on time. Sometimes we get contradictory reports and decide to send the essay out for another reading. We are always frustrated by these delays, since we have all suffered at the hands of slow journals ourselves! But in general, we try to be as prompt as possible with our limited staff without moving to the "no reports" model that a few other journals in our field use. I see nearly all of our readers' reports, and most of them are careful, respectful, and thorough. But for those of you who were unhappy with the tone of your responses: I will take this issue up with the board at our next meeting. That shouldn't be happening. *I had an *excellent* experience with ELR. Sent in an article (hardcopy, as directed) in December 2013. Got a hardcopy confirmation they had received my article shortly thereafter. In March, after the reader had not gotten back to them, they sent me a polite email explaining the situation and saying they would have an answer after their board meeting in May. Just got a notification of acceptance today. Very impressed by their speed, professionalism, and transparency. ---- ''English Studies'' *10 weeks, 1 detailed reviewer, R+R, resubmission accepted inside a week. Proofs received 15 months later. Another few months to print. So a swift and thorough review process, but time to print not ideal. * The same experience; quick turnaround, helpful comments, but slow to come to print. * Not sure it should be in this section; they publish work on any literature in English (as well as lots of linguistics work), not just that from England. :*Point taken. However, given its title and focus, the journal probably belongs here more than any other page (one could make a similar point about ELH, for example, but there's not been a debate about keeping it on this page). "Comparative" tends to refer to journals that also publish work on literature and/or theory from non-English language traditions, which are explicitly excluded in this journal's focus on "the language, literature, and culture of the English-speaking world from the Anglo-Saxon to the present day." It could also be posted on the "Postcolonial" or "American" pages, but those categories don't seem to do justice to the journal's breadth, either. I think someone looking to find or share information about this journal would probably check this page first, and, however imperfect, it's more helpful to keep all the comments on one page rather than cross-posting across several pages. ---- ''Essays in Criticism'' *Turnaround is glacier slow (10 months!), but notes are helpful. ---- ''The Explicator'' *Turnaround is efficient. I submitted something in 2013. It was roughly four months from submission to decision (with two very brief reports supplied). The article was then scheduled to appear in print three months post-decision (and online even earlier than that). * Some two months between submission and acceptance. They're quick. * (in 2011)- 1 month to decision (R&R), I took 1 month to revise, then in 7 weeks, I received an accept. Easy to work with and very quick turnaround. Submitted a second article in August 2014, and no response as of November, so slower this time. Submitted an essay in July 2014, no response as of January 2015. ---- ''James Joyce Quarterly'' * Very slow. * Yeah, they're a little slow, but very professional. Got terrific reader's reports, including a very helpful cover letter from the editor, and excellent copy-editing on the back end. In this case, the slowness seems to be due to care and diligence. Very positive experience. * Yes very slow 6+ months and then one paragraph rejection...would have rather had a desk reject. ---- Journal of English and Germanic Philology (JEGP) *Was asked to write a book review; then they didn't send me the book until nearly the deadline. Disorganized! *Sent a book review on time but they didn't get it turned around in time for publication in the anticipated volume. Ditto on the earlier description of JEGP as disorganized! * A little slow, and wish they'd join the new century and not send paper letters, but their article decline was polite and friendly. ---- ''Journal of the Northern Renaissance * Thinking of submitting here. Is this a good idea? ---- ''Journal of the Wooden O Symposium * ---- ''Keats-Shelley Journal'' * ---- ''Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England *Three months from submission to acceptance, with no revisions requested. Two years and a half between acceptance and actual publication. * A fast turnaround, and the essay was accepted without revisions, but they're annual, so the wait to see the peice in print is long. ---- ''Milton Quarterly *Submitted an article for review in August, 2011. As of March 2012, no word. Contacted editor in July 2012; was told that they were still waiting on one of the reader's reports. No contact since then. Emailed in Sept 2012 to check up on status. Currently awaiting response. *Positive experience here. Submitted article in early 2011, received detailed notes from reader and editor, re-submitted with final publication occurring in late 2011. I did take some emailing to nudge the process along, but in the end it did not seem unreasonable. * Submitted an article early in the summer of 2013; contacted editor after about four months and was told that the manuscript was out with readers; contacted editor in May 2014 and was told that the response (a slightly ambiguous rejection) had been sent back in March and apparently lost in the mail. * I submitted an article for review in November 2013 and only received an email from them in May 2014. But they were asking for another copy of my submission since they had lost some files (or something like that). I resubmitted immediately and was told I would hear back in a couple of weeks. As of January 2015, I still haven't heard from them. ---- ''Milton Studies'' *I had a very positive experience with this journal as both an author and (on one occasion) a reviewer, but that was under Al Labriola, so I can't comment on the current review process. I hope it remains as thoughtful and efficient. *Excellent experience. I received a response after three months, with two helpful readers reports. ---- ''Modern Drama'' * Anyone had any experience with this journal? How fast is their review process? ---- ''Nineteenth-Century Contexts'' *Frustrating experience with this journal. Submitted an article, and then after checking in and receiving non-committal responses from managing editor after six and nine months, finally withdrew article after a year. Got a non-committal response to my request for withdrawal, promising that the editor would get back to me shortly (even though I no longer cared, as I was withdrawing). Editor still never got back to me. *I had a very similar experience. (x2) ---- ''Nineteenth-Century Prose'' * ---- ''Parergon'' *I always find their rejections a little snarky, but they're pretty quick with turnaround and give detailed reports. ---- ''Persuasions: The Jane Austen Journal'' * ---- ''Notes and Queries'' *Rejected, slightly strange in that they said they accepted the validity of my conjecture but did not wish to pubishh it. * Five month review period (May-Nov). Rejection with no feedback. * One-sentence rejection email with no explanation for rejection and no commentary on emailed submission. 3 month review period. *Submitted an article in August 2006, received an acceptance in January 2007. No commentary or feedback, but an acceptance. The publication process was quick, efficient, and professional: my note was published within 7 months of acceptance. *Submitted article mid-April 2013, received acceptance mid-July. As above, no feedback. Article is scheduled to be published in December, five months from acceptance. *Submitted a piece in September 2013, and as of March May 2014 have not heard a word back. ---- ''Review of English Studies'' * Article submitted received a revise-and-resubmit exactly one month later; I was very happy with the turn-around time. Comments from period editor were useful and polite; comments from outside reader were a mix of useful and condescending. After revising, the outside reader again required more revisions three months later. The tone of his/her comments was again sarcastic and several of the suggestions were truly ill-advised (calling for poor stylistic changes and factually incorrect changes). After selectively revising a second time and resubmitting, I was notified within two weeks that the piece was accepted. Be aware that Oxford journals use an online submission system that is cumbersome, form heavy, and often cryptic. *Annual RES best graduate student essay prize is worth noting. If you are a graduate student submitting to RES, it is certainly worth a shot: I was lucky enough to win it a few years back and found that it gave my essay a higher profile on my cv, which can't hurt. Like another poster above, I found the turn-around prompt. *Submitted article for essay prize; received very quick, kind rejection note with helpful feedback. *Submitted an article and received a rejection about 2 months later. It was a quick turn-around, and the rejection was really polite and for the most part, useful. The 1st reviewer had much positive feedback and seemed enthusiastic about publishing the piece, but the 2nd reviewer wasn't so enthusiastic. He/she was a bit condescending in tone and it became apparant that he/she failed to read the article closely. He/she mentioned that the work was admirable and hoped that I continued work in the area I had written on, but criticized the fact that I hadn't included discussion or even a passing reference to another scholar's previous work on a theme discussed in the paper. If he/she had read my article closely he/she would have seen that I referred to and discussed the scholar in question on the very first page of my article (and had a reference in footnote #1). Fair enough. I wish a rewrite and resubmit was offered, but the editor mentioned that they receive a large number of articles and can only accept a small few. The period-editor listed a number of highly rated journals that will probably consider the article --- once I consider the reviewers remarks. I am not put off by the rejection, just annoyed by some of the unwarranted feedback from one reviewer. Still, I hope to submit again in the future, as the overall experience with RES has been positive. *Highly negative experience: took over six months and repeated prodding to receive a response on a short (7k-word) essay. Reader report explaining the rejection was brief, unhelpful, and condescending. Won't submit to again and don't recommend. ---- ''Romanticism'' * ---- ''SEL: Studies in English Literature 1500-1900'' * I have not submitted here, but I have heard from others that SEL can take a verryyy looonnng time to get back to you with a response (like over a year). *My submission was accepted exactly 4 months after it was received, as indicated on their website. Over two years before it's slated for publication, but that's because it's basically an annual (SEL's four annual issues each cover a different sub-field). Based on my experience, I would highly recommend submitting here as long as you don't mind a long wait between acceptance and publication. *I had an article under review at this journal for 2 years. I kept in touch with the editor, who kept promising that he's have something for me shortly. Eventually, I withdrew the publication. *Received a timely (ie: exactly 4 month) rejection. Be aware, however, for those who work in the early modern period: one of their reviewers uses scholarship from the 1930s and Google searches in order to vet information in submissions (which presents a real problem if you are offering them newly discovered material that contradicts older scholarship). You may want to save yourself the 4 months and send it to somewhere with a more relevant and up-to-date slate of readers. *Received a timely (4 month) request to revise and resubmit, together with a detailed and extraordinarily helpful reader report. Received a timely acceptance after revision. Great experience; kind, courteous, professional people. *I also had a long (1 year +) wait. Revise & Resubmit, but one of the reader reports was a thinly veiled ad hominem attack and not constructive at all. Would not recommend submitting here. *I submitted once (can we say how unfun paper submission is versus online?) and got a very quick (